Latest on long saga of Bank Reform...

If there was a prize of the biggest bore in Britain or Brussels I should probably enter. Friends who have been loyal enough to drag me out of the office for dinner or a drink over the past two years have listened to me yakking on about negotiations in the bank Capital Requirement Directive, CRD 4. Last Monday we finally got to a vote.

This dates back to the collapse of Lehmans and Northern Rock and to subsequent announcements of global leaders. Tucked in the back of a G20 communique from 2009 was a statement that banks in the future would hold far higher level capital (to help withstand losses) and liquidity (so that they have cash on hand to meet withdrawals) both backstopped by an overall test on leverage and stronger corporate governance.

Detailed work on delivering those ambitions has been happening with bank supervisors from across the globe at the Basel Committee. US legislators made their first steps to introduce part of this in the 2010 Dodd Frank bill. CRD 4 is Europe’s legislative effort. Whilst there are many places where the EU makes un-necessary laws, having international agreements on international banks is needed and Europe is just one of the places where we need to make those agreements.

 The G20 statement was just two paragraphs, the reality is much more complicated. Last summer the Commission published its first draft of the new laws; a 150 page Directive plus another 500 page Regulation in three volumes. This covers a plethora of different banking services and is also set against the backdrop of our weak economic outlook, a credit crunch exacerbated by de-leveraging and banks still teetering on the edge in certain European countries - as demonstrated by last weeks bailout of the Spanish “Bankia”.

In February, MEPs submitted over 2,000 amendments to the Commissions text. I admit that nearly 200 of those came from me, another 200 from British Lib Dem Sharon Bowles, Conservative Ashley Fox helpfully focused 70 amendments on corporate governance issues. When the European Parliament is faced with such a mountain of amendments lead negotiators from each political group meet to see if they can haggle out some agreements. Othmar Karas (Austrian Centre Right) was “the Rapporteur” backed by Shadows, Udo Bulmann (German Socialist), Sharon Bowles (UK Liberal), Philippe Lamberts (Belgian Green) and me for the European Conservatives and Reformists. 170 compromise amendments were then tabled with another hundred plus amendments put to the Committee vote on Monday evening. Opinions differed on various details but at the end of a 3 hour voting session the Parliament now has a new draft of the text, which MEPs unanimously agreed to take into the next stage of negotiations. So who should be happy with the new amended text and who should be concerned?

Those who should be Happy
Small and Medium sized businesses who pushed hard for weighted incentives for banks making loans to these companies. The incentives are now there. Will they work?
Tax Payers who with more robust capital and liquidity will find banks less likely to fail. Also, thanks to amendments by Sharon Bowles, banks will have to provide “living wills” so if there is a collapse regulators can ring fence off critical parts of the banks. We passed amendments drafted by the FSA, tabled by me, which will allow conversion of subordinated debt before tax payer’s commit funds (a key and very expensive lesson for UK tax payers from the RBS bailout).
The Queen, or at least the PM and Chancellor for the Queen's Speech. A key part of the Queen’s speech was the UK’s proposal to ring fence retail from investment banking, but this legislation could have prevented that. Whereas an EU Directive allows a country to introduce stronger rules when it brings in its domestic legislation an EU Regulation does not. We often complain about “gold plating” but sometimes we also need it. The right for the UK to put stronger rules on its banks was one of David Cameron’s key reasons for vetoing the EU treaty last year, and whilst many Conservatives were involved in last minute eve-of-poll plans for the local elections this month, George Osborne left a Brussels negotiating table at 1.30 am refusing to sign up to the Council’s amended draft of the legislation which would have left him without these powers.
Companies with international trade links as part of the original text would have had a disproportionate negative impact on trade finance.
The CBI and larger industrial corporates who use hedging tools to mitigate true businesses risks like foreign exchange, interest rate and commodity price exposures.
Mortgage holders struggling with their repayments as the original draft would have forced banks to start to consider repossessions after 90 days of delayed payments whereas many homeowners suffering temporary cash crises can get back onto a new schedule to keep their homes and pay their lenders.
Infrastructure projects which are so critical to our long term growth. MEPs supported my amendment to give banks extra incentives to lend to these.
The UK’s Co-operative bank which not actually a co-operative but is a subsidiary of a co-operative but will now be treated as a co-operative. Small point but very important to them and we should support Co-ops and mutuals.
British Banks who have, on the whole, already complied with the higher capital and liquidity requirements of Basel do want to see a level playing field with their international competitors. Leveling up the playing field with European banks is only part of the global jigsaw, but it is at least a start.
UK Building Societies which can’t issue new shares as they don’t have “shareholders” but will be able to build up capital with alternative share like instruments.
Shareholders and Depositors who will start to see greater transparency on the activities of their banks. For example, internal models which have caused so much chaos will now need to be benchmarked against those of peers. The financial crisis started in the US mortgage securitisation market so one of my concerns is the rise in secured debt being issued by European banks through covered bonds. There should now be greater transparency and a full review of the covered bond markets.
And who do should still be Concerned
Shareholders of certain continental European banks who have negotiated special exemptions. Especially of certain bank/insurer groups which have a negotiated a different model for calculating capital from the Basel norm. Their share prices are still trading at near all time lows. My amendments for greater transparency on these were not passed. Some other continental banks are still hoping their national regulators will allow them to continue to issue weaker forms of capital. Both of these issues undermine the global agreement and Europe’s so called level playing field but I suspect shareholders worries may become a stronger force for change.
Mervyn King, other Central Bankers and Regulators who have been issuing warnings to European politicians about new potential systemic risks, but many European politicians have, yet again, been having deaf ears. For example, central bankers wanted national regulators to be able to go further than EU minimums but boy was this a fight with federalist MEPs. MEPs did not listen to specific concerns they raised about parts of the covered bond market in certain countries. Following last weeks Spanish bailout Central Bankers should also be concerned as to whether supervisors are ready and able to prevent and resolve future problems.
Shadow Banking those involved in large “repo” transactions will now need to have much greater transparency. Their concerns should be a good thing for the rest of us and this especially affects how the European Central Bank is going to get out of being the lender of last resort to so many banks across Europe.
Asset managers as some of their amendments to recognise the differences between banks and investment managers were not passed. This could be extremely costly for investors. I hope we can get this changed in the next level of negotiations.
Those still taking very large bonuses who have been sent a very firm message by colleagues who voted for a 1 to 1 cap on bonus to salary. Like many, I don’t have much sympathy for their concern but there is a risk that this cap will just push up salaries making banks even less robust during downturns. Therefore, I proposed a last minute amendment to give the capping powers to shareholders at AGMs, but this did not get through the Parliament. This suggestion has however been picked up by Commissioner Barnier (with whom I so often disagree) in the front page of yesterday’s FT. Perhaps we will see the UK’s Shareholder Spring moving across the Continent.

Actually we should all be concerned, whilst personally I can put a mountain of paper in my recycling bin this is not over. These are still far from global agreements but they affect global players, and as we all learnt from Lehmans and RBS those global players affect our personal economic futures. The UK redlines to be able to take our own protections from future failures have been met in both the Parliament and Council versions of the text but the final agreement is far from over as now Parliament, Council and Commission will meet in Trialogue for more detailed negotiations. The concerns of real businesses large and small have largely been included but will this be enough to get the balance between safer banks and the credit crunch restored, this is critical to growth. Are the risks which we found in our banking systems now being transferred to less regulated sectors. In the meantime the single market is still far from a transparent level playing field. And most pressingly the crisis remains in the Eurozone with the ECB continuing to provide a Euro-taxpayer-costly lifeline for many Eurozone banks. I suspect I will be boring on about banks for a while yet.

PS for anyone who is interested. UKIP MEPs could have been represented in the negotiations but have never sent a representative. They tabled zero amendments. Their one member of the committee also failed to turn up to the vote on Monday. Many amendments were passed by just one vote.

On the doorsteps across the East of England

Having spent the past few weeks locked down in Brussels negotiating for Britain on a plethora of legislation it has been really good to spend some time back in the East of England knocking on doors, finding out what people are worried about and listening to the stories from local councillors and candidates who have been on the local election campaign trail for many weeks. I have been to North, South, East and West of the region from Peterborough to Thurrock, Yarmouth to Watford via Harlow, Cambridgeshire, and St Albans. In every area there are true local issues raised; from lamp posts to traffic logistics, ponds to planning issues. People want their local councillors to work hard, but they are also very concerned about the lack of money in their pocket and want low bills. Some have raised tax issues, petrol prices and policing. Some genuinely seem surprised (and pleased) to learn that the budget put over £15 a month back into the pockets of nearly 20 million people on lower incomes. This message from the budget was so missed by the press coverage. Despite the news coverage this week, not a single person has spoken to me about "ministerial code of conducts" or the queues at Heathrow. I've no doubt that the election turnout will be low, people are worried about the economy and many will show their concern by simply staying away from the polling stations. As a mid-term election in very difficult economic times there are bound to be people voting against the parties in Government. However, I have also met some really outstanding local candidates, many of whom are standing for the first time. It has been horrid weather for canvassing but where the candidates have been able to get out and meet people they have won promises of votes so this has given me hope for the future.

In beautiful St Albans today we came across this street sign. The European Commission could do with taking a large dose of Temperance with respect to their outrageous budget hike proposals. One bit of good news from Brussels is that I'm feeling a bit more confident that I might win the battle for keeping buy-to-let mortgage market open. It would be devastating if this market closed, not just for investors and savers but for those who rely on private rental property to put a roof over their heads.

How to cut EU law before it even exists

One of the most frequent complaints about the EU is the amount of legislation that comes out of Brussels. MEPs can take two approaches to the problem. The first is to wait until the proposed legislation is debated in the main chamber in the parliament, stand in front of the TV cameras, shout about its costs and hope that the law is voted out. This approach gets the shouting MEP much media space but is rarely successful. Alternatively an MEP can try to delete large swathes of European law long before it is ever gets to the debating chamber.

In Westminster very few amendments submitted by back bench MPs are even debated or voted on, but in Europe over half of the changes proposed by MEPs end up as law.

In recent months I have tabled over 130 amendments to a proposed directive on mortgage lending, of which 53 were to delete text.

I submitted 115 amendments on the proposed energy efficiency directive. We all want to get our energy bill down but the first draft of this legislation was a typical one-size-fits all approach from the European Commission. My amendments were mostly to give countries, local authorities, businesses and householders more flexibility in how to achieve savings.

Last week I completed194 amendments to the proposed new regulation of banks. These would let banks free up capital for lending to small companies, trade finance and infrastructure projects but make them set some aside for sovereign loans to be better prepared for a Greek style event. They would force banks to abide by new globally agreed principles on capital, liquidity and leverage and, crucially, allow our UK government to impose stricter rules. No more RBS style bailouts for me please.

Before drafting these amendments I tend to spend hours meeting consumer groups, businesses, UK government experts and regulators to understand their issues. Just handing in the amendments to the Parliaments tabling office is not enough - One then has to spend yet more hours meeting MEPs from other countries and political groups to build a consensus, before bringing the amendments to a vote in a committee meetings. Then follows even more hours fighting ones corner in “trialog” meetings between MEPs, the European Commission and representatives of Europe’s 27 different national parliaments.

On mortgages I think most of my 53 deletions will be accepted. As a result British savers will still be able to invest in buy-to-let properties, but East Anglian residents who want to move to sunny Spain may have fewer problems with mortgage lenders in the future. On Energy Efficiency many of my amendments went through on Committee vote but there is still too much red-tape in the legislation, so I hope some of this can disappear in trialog discussions. On banks I’m still waiting to see how my amendments shape up with those of others, negotiations will go on for months.

By the time these proposals get to a final debate in the main chamber, I may still stand in front of the TV cameras and encourage MEPs to vote against. But if my amendments make it through at least we will have a shorter piece of legislation.

From EU Treaty to Ambulance service

First Strasbourg week of 2012 opened as ever with a 9 hour commute via Cambridge, London and Paris - don’t ever get conned into believing French trains are that much better than the British ones. The journey home took even longer with yet again delays on the lines.

Arriving at the EP we were greeted with yellow and blue balloons and happy faces of Nirj Diva for his campaign to give socialist Martin Schulz a bit of competition in the race for Parliament President. Schulz had been offered the role in a stitch up deal between the two biggest political groups socialist (S&D) and centre right (EPP) back in 2009 when the two big groups decided to back the EPP candidate for the first 2.5 years in return for EPP giving their votes to the S&D for the second half of the five year term. Needless to say Nirj standing for the Conservative and Reformists new he didn’t have a chance and Schulz did win the ballot on Tuesday morning. However Nirj, coming second, and Diana Wallis coming third for the liberals made a good dent in Schulz’s deal and its clear that the majority of the centre right reneged on their party whip in order to place their votes elsewhere. The left and right of Europe went on to display how divided they have become during the week, keeping us all late in the Parliament on Tuesday and wasting most of Wednesday as we kept being called back to vote in numerous rounds for Vice Presidents and Quaestors - all the time it being clear that L and R will no longer support each other even in these rather minor votes for political positions. In the meantime Martin Schulz took is seat armed with a little bell which he rings frequently. It is as annoying as fingernails scraping down a black board and just as archaic.

There was L vs R division also late on Monday Evening when MEPs met to discuss the new “Treaty of 26” (or is it now 25 and falling as the Czechs have decided to take it to a referendum). Reading through the very short treaty I find it most bizarre - there is practically noting in the “new” economic treaty that was not already agreed by the 26 countries in the Economic Governance package the “6 pack” which I worked on last year and which was officially voted through by the 27 National leaders back last September. There is lots of political noise about the “debt brakes” and “golden rules” in the treaty but these were all agreed in the 6 pack. There is also a lot of complaining about the UK veto, but they had all agreed to give the UK an exemption to this back in the 6 pack. So either National leaders never really intended to implement the decisions they signed up to in September or it’s all just political posturing. MEPs, especially the Socialists and Greens seem to have totally forgotten what was in the 6 pack - which they voted against in the first place and keep going back through the same old arguments which they lost last year. The copies of the new “treaty” were all stamped “highly confidential” which is stupid really as I had downloaded my own copy from the Open Europe website days before.

In the meantime very little is actually being done to focus on growth let alone budgetary control.

Much of the rest of my Strasbourg week was taken up with conversations about the Energy Efficiency directive. If we are in any way to help people with rising oil prices let alone address climate change then energy savings and energy efficiency needs to be treated as seriously as other energy policies like renewables. The first draft of the new Directive however was deeply prescriptive, and instead I would like to see more about different menus of options where countries can learn from each others experiences of best practices before choosing the solutions that best suit their national needs. We are making progress on this but its many many hours of long meetings. Votes will now happen towards the end of Feb.

Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank also came to speak to MEPs. I found myself agreeing with him that countries must be able to go further than EU minimum rules on for example banking reforms if this helps their own national markets. This was one of the issues raised by David Cameron in his treaty veto decision. It was clear from the Draghi meeting that some MEPs will never agree and want a one sized fits all solution across Europe, even if it is completely unworkable and impracticable. However other MEPs were listening carefully. We will debate the new banking directives and regulations on Tuesday.

On Friday I went to see the good ladies of Huntingdon Conservative Association who would pretty much all be delighted to see Scotland float off from the rest of the UK and don’t have much time for Sarko. As well as the Euro crisis and the UK treaty veto they probed on the benefits of the single market from pig welfare and chicken cages to the new barcoding system that will help remove dodgy fake pharmaceuticals from our pharmacies.

I also met up with Cllr Colin Walker from Suffolk who has been trying to shape up the Ambulance service - there are terrible call out delays in parts of rural East Anglia. We discussed what more could be done to support the volunteer group of First Responders who are excellent in many local areas. I will see if some EU funding can be achieved for this and had a follow up chat with Dr Dan Poulter MP who has been banging heads together on this too.

Saturday morning saw an excellent turnout for campaigning in Kesgrave, Suffolk where there is a by-election coming up for both County and District Elections. Big smiles from Peter Aldous MP and leader of the County Council Mark Bee before we all went out to deliver leaflets. It was good to talk to people on the streets, and after being caught in a shower, to warm up over a pub lunch and hear the news from local councillors.

Eurozone politics

This week I have been in negotiations on bank deposit schemes (where France and Italy disagree with Germany), on mortgage agreements (where Spain disagrees with Italy and Netherlands) on energy efficiency measures (where Finland disagrees with Germany and they both disagree with France), Eurozone countries even disagree about how chickens lay eggs. The crisis may lead the Eurozone to share decisions on National deficits and debts, perhaps they will allow the ECB to transfer bad debts from banks to governments, possibly even to guaranteeing each others debts, but it seems very unlikely they would agree to vote as a block on EU legislation.

Fiddling whilst Rome can't Borrow

Here is my speech from last nights European Parliament meeting.

Last week Germany could not sell one third of its bond issue, yesterday the Italian Government paid nearly 8% interest and today two million people are striking in Britain even though the UK public pension black hole is the biggest in Europe. Right now this Parliament and every parliament should be looking at how to help growth, remove red tape and get businesses moving, but instead we have been in back rooms arguing about just when an economic dialogue would fit into Parliament’s timetable and who should be on the guest list.

Of course countries should consider how their economic policies affect others, but MEPs are now asking for a new treaty to give the European Parliament a vote on economic guidelines. This will not decrease the resentment of many of our citizens when they see decisions being taken in faraway places, and it will not help our businesses to grow. Members, we really must stop fiddling whilst Rome cannot borrow!


It was late but there were almost more than the usual handful of MEPs in the room. A the end of the speech I was applauded by members of MEPs from Europe's largest centre right party the EPP, but Othmar Karas pulled me a sad smile from their front bench. He knows just how hard we have been working together in the back room negotiations to tone down the language of deficit deniers from the left. I can't support the final report but its much less bad than it could have been. I knew Othmar agreed with much of what I said about unlocking bureaucracy, helping growth. Thats where we really need to work together. If you want to see the videos or speeches there are all here

A week in the life of...

Last week I was asked to keep a diary for a website called Public Service Europe (probably funded through EU budget propaganda). To be honest the beginning of the week was so busy I didn't have time to spend a penny let alone type up my days, so Sunday was catch up day.

If you are interested in what an MEP does hereit is! Though I have noticed that they edited out my entire Monday morning meeting in Ipswich with Ben Gummer MP where we were trying to help sort out the waterfront development mess in Ipswich which is tied up with the Irish banking crisis. We were meeting the receivers, the local council and those from Dublin responsible for "managing" the bad bank assets. Typical Brussels to edit away the real bad news.

The Conservative MEP questions commissioners, meets banks and businesses and interviews for a new assistant – before treating her daughter to a performance of the Spanish Riding School of Vienna

Monday

On the way to Brussels I read through the commission's latest proposals for a new regulation on offshore oil safety. I took on the role of drafting a report for the European Parliament on offshore oil drilling after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. It's vital to the United Kingdom, which has more offshore oil than the rest of the EU put together. The new proposed law leaves me with many questions, not least: will it result in having to dumb down the UK's own safety legislation? This week the commissioners have annual hearings with MEPs on upcoming legislation and I want to quiz energy commissioner Günther Oettinger on this.

I arrive in Brussels at 6pm, to meet Westminster MPs Chris Heaton Harris, George Eustace and Andrea Leadsom. They are looking at suggestions for EU reform and I wanted them to be up to date on the parliament's suggestion for improving" economic co-ordination. Basically this would involve the parliament having a vote on economic guidelines for member states. I think it would be a disaster. As a result of the eurozone crisis, countries have now agreed to share information on budgets between different national governments. There has already been great resentment, for example when the Irish people learnt that German lawmakers had seen the country's budget before Irish MPs. Giving the parliament a vote which might directly influence the economic policies and decisions of individual nations would risk even greater resentment.

I also told the MPs about the upcoming negotiations on EU research funding which is critical to many scientists and businesses in the UK. Over dinner we were joined by cabinet minister Francis Maude and many other British MEPs. It was a feisty discussion. Some of us pointed out that it is not only the UK which is concerned about the impact of many EU regulations on businesses and growth.

Tuesday

At 8am I was joined by Patrick Jones, a research scientist in bio-fuels from Finland. He is going to shadow me for the next two days as part of an exchange program between scientists and MEPs. I had invited Douglas Flint CBE, chairman of HSBC, to breakfast with a group of MEPs and the turnout was good. We have leading MEPs from four different political groups: three from the centre-right European People's Party, as well as the Liberals and Greens and our own European Conservatives and Reformists. Douglas urged us to look beyond the eurozone crisis and economic malaise, and to understand the risk that Europe and smaller European banks could become uninvestable. Chinese investors, he said, see Europe as a fundamentally easier place to invest than the United States, for example, but they also see the inability to take political decisions as a major downside. We need to look at how to encourage long term investors to invest in infrastructure. One MEP asked if Europe over-regulates. The answer is immediate: the burden of bureaucracy on businesses is too high. I asked the other political groups whether they would support us in a campaign focusing on reducing the burden of regulation. I learnt that "deregulation" is a toxic phrase in certain countries where it is linked with the financial crash, but that there is support for cutting bureaucracy and reducing red tape. We agreed to propose a major drive on this. If we can achieve cross-party consensus there may be a real opportunity.

Following a meeting of industry, research and energy committee, which was debating long-term investment in infrastructure, I met Lloyds Bank, the European Association of Co-operative Banks and representatives from the Loan Market Association to discuss different details of new regulations on bank capital, lending and liquidity. I try to agree to meet as many businesses, consumer groups or regulators who contact me as possible, and of course I disclose all these meetings. Each of these organisations' concerns is quite technical, but could have a significant impact on lending to companies and mortgages. At the moment I am in listening and questioning mode. Some of the lenders or their borrower clients may have a reasonable point, but I am sceptical about others.

At midday I broke from meetings to go to a lunch organised by the European Parkinson's Disease Association. We heard first-hand from younger patients of their experiences living with the disease, and from a Dutch doctor about how their reorganisation of specialists has helped. I asked what their thoughts are on how the European Court of Justice's recent ban on patenting discoveries from stem cells could affect future treatments. We were told that research into new treatments is vital as is access to current ones. Then, I grabbed a coffee with Paul Laffin from our East of England office to discuss the 2012 Olympics. Not all the events are happening in London: canoeing and mountain biking will be in Hertfordshire and Essex so I've recently been to visit the sites. We want to arrange a reception showcasing the non-London venues next year and hopefully find some partner projects in different parts of Europe to help with the legacy.

By 3pm it was time for MEPs to quiz Barnier in the Economic Affairs Committee. I asked him why his proposals for bank capital are set as maximum levels across the EU not minimums. He implied this was a UK concern – but given that the head of the European Central Bank, the previous head, and the European Systemic Risk Board are all warning against his approach I believe this should be even more of a concern to those in the eurozone than those outside. But I don't think he got my point, and he certainly didn't answer the question adequately. His announcement that he would review whether to introduce a split between retail and investment banks, as the UK is considering, sent all the journalists scribbling.

After a 5pm meeting with Santander, I headed with Patrick the scientist to dinner with the European Energy Forum. Before dinner, oil giants ENI and Total talked to me about the offshore oil proposals. They worry that the European Union safety standard focusing on 'major hazards' is going to be lower than the UK's 'as low as reasonably practicable' standard. It's not often that industry worry that laws are not strong enough. Over dinner the president of GDF Suez told the audience how gas can help Europe reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent. Patrick whispered in my ear to question where the numbers come from, and we worked out that half the saving is proposed to come from carbon capture and storage. Given that investors have recently been questioning North Sea proposals for underground CO2 storage I am concerned that this may not be realistic.

Wednesday

Wednesday involved interviewing potential new assistants, as my current economics assistant is moving off to work for an insurance company. After voting in the industry committee I went to a meeting with a German Liberal MEP and the European Commission on financial prospectuses. Last year we had agreed that smaller companies should not need to produce so much information when trying to get their shares listed. It was part of an effort to reduce bureaucracy for businesses that can often spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees for a flotation – but the political agreement risks being de-railed by 'experts' who are suggesting that small and large companies should be equal. I wonder how many of those so-called experts are the lawyers and not the companies or investors. We made some suggested changes and agreed to stay in touch. Later, Investor AB came for a meeting. They are one of Sweden's biggest long term strategic investors in companies and are concerned by the proposal that non-execs should never sit on more than four company boards. Sometimes they want to place somebody with expertise on more companies. We discuss potential amendments which might benefit long-term investors.

At 3pm, Oettinger came for his annual public hearing on energy with MEPs. I asked him whether his proposal for oil regulation was really meant to be a maximum standard for safety, or if individual member states would be free to set higher standards. He said it's just meant to be a minimum, which is interesting, since the commission has written it as a maximum harmonisation 'regulation' not a minimum level 'directive'. I immediately notified the UK negotiators in the European Council who will be looking at the implications for UK oil security.

Commissioner Olli Rehn is the economic affairs expert and his hearing was next. I asked him about the UK, pointing out that our annual deficit between spending and income is double that of the eurozone and more than double that of Italy. I reminded him that the UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget and has contributed roughly 5 per cent to the eurozone bailouts so far, despite not being a member. "Commissioner", I said, "is the UK being selfish?" The entire room laughed, as the accusation by a German MP of the UK's selfish nature was front page headlines last week. Many MEPs from other countries nag us when we ask to reduce the budget, and they try to demand the UK puts in more. I don't think the UK can afford to continue this level of contributions, so it's important to lay down some markers. Rehn certainly didn't accuse the UK of being selfish and indeed offered his gratitude.

Then I raced into a meeting of European ceramics manufacturers, a crowded room with over 100 delegates. Ceramics is an energy intensive business and they are concerned about upcoming legislation on energy efficiency. I described some of the 1800 proposed amendments, including ones by my office on reducing some of the energy audit bureaucracy: each of these companies monitor energy very closely, it is their largest cost, and they don't need a public audit statement to encourage them to save energy. As with much EU legislation this one starts with helpful intentions. But the top down one size fits all approach has raised concerns from industry, public authorities and consumer groups.

Thursday

In the morning I visited the Red Balloon charity which works to help children and teenagers who have dropped out of school due to bullying. Carrie Herbert set up the first school fifteen years ago and now has 10 across the country. It is incredibly moving. Teenagers come to them often in deepest depression and within a year of counseling and teaching are usually back into main stream schooling. With youth unemployment such a top priority it was great to see a project that really can turn lives around. Carrie explained that it's relatively easy to raise money to build the schools but much more difficult to get ongoing revenue funding. I can't understand why these schools can't qualify for the government free school program and have promised to write letters of support.

At the office just outside Cambridge I interview three more candidates for the assistant role. I then went with my assistant Jess Cole to meet Professor Austin Smith at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research in Cambridge. He is one of the world's leading stem cell researchers. I have seen letters in erudite publications from Austin and many of his colleagues around the world worrying about the ECJ ruling but none of them had written to MEPs on the research committee. The ruling is based on a piece of EU legislation that dates back to the 1990s when stem cell research was in its early days. Austin spoke about the trials that are now happening to cure blindness and the project he is working on for early onset diabetes. I offered that if he wanted to bring colleagues from across the field to Brussels I would see if MEPs would come and listen to what he has to say. I think they should understand the consequences of this ruling, and what it might mean for medical research. I don't believe that membership of the single market should mean that all countries must have identical ethical positions on issues like this. If the underlying law is unclear then politicians should look at clarifying it, not leave lawyers and judges to make far reaching judgements based on outdated legislation.

On the way home I picked my daughter Lizzie up from school and we went to the iconic Fitzbillies tea shop in Cambridge. Lizzie's godmother Lucie has always worked in local government, but she and her cookery writer partner Lucas have long dreamed of running their own food shop. Lucie was spending a week learning the ropes pouring tea and making cakes. We discussed the difficulties of setting up a new business. The new owners of Fitzbillies have taken a loss making shop and hopefully turned it profitable – if they can make it work in this economic environment they must be doing something right.

On Thursday nights, if I can, I try to get to rehearsals with my local choir. I usually make about every third or fourth rehearsal and this was a lucky week. Singing forces me to switch everything else off. We are working towards our Christmas carol concert with lots of old favourites and some new challenges.

Friday

I usually spend Fridays visiting companies or other groups across the east of England but this week I had set it aside. I signed a mountain of Christmas cards, worked through some of my emails and decided to offer the job to the one candidate whose eyes lit up with glee at the idea of piles of complicated legal documents. At lunchtime I disappeared for an hour of riding across the beautiful north Essex countryside. I've been trying to do this about once a month or so and feel so much fitter. In the evening I collected Lizzie from school with two of her friends; she has just had a birthday so for a treat we headed to Wembley Arena where we were joined by family. The show was the Spanish Riding School of Vienna who visit the UK just every five years. Not everyone is into horses dancing to music but the moves date back nearly 500 years and it is breathtakingly beautiful. As an added bonus we were treated to displays by Carl Hester, who has recently been in the UK's world champion equestrian team and Lee Pearson, nine times Paralympic gold medallist – great work by Team GB to get us all excited for 2012.

Saturday

Today was a very quiet day as we were shattered. We had planned to go to see the thousands of swans that migrate to Welney in Norfolk, but the warm weather means the Bewick swans have not really started to arrive from Russia yet so we will leave it a couple of weeks. Instead I went to Newmarket racecourse to the Christmas craft sale in aid of Macmillan Cancer Support. As parliament doesn't break up until December 23, it was great to make a start on some Christmas shopping and see some friends. I came home armed with gadgets for godsons, a special widget to help find my brother's permanently lost car keys and slip-on studs which I hope might stop my stepfather slipping on the ice.

Sunday

After a brief respite to read the Sunday papers, today was spent taking my daughter for a ride and ferrying my sons to birthday parties. Then, a family supper, which is usually the time of the week we all manage to sit down together in relative peace: I have to catch the Eurostar tomorrow, when it all starts again.